Most every technology company prefers to use only one brand. GE makes aircraft engines, refrigerators, X-ray machines, and numerous other producs. All products carry the brand GE. In effect, the products therefore do not have brand names, they just carry the company name. Is this wise? It saves money. GE achieves economies of scale by using only one brand name.

But the type of companies that specializes in brand management could not imagine doing such a thing. Can you imagine P&G naming all its products P&G: P&G shampoo, P&G soap, P&G detergent? Or would "Unilever Ice Cream" taste better than "Wall's Magnum Ice Cream"? I think an ice cream named "Unilever Ice Cream" would taste like soap or shampoo.

But Philips puts its Philips name on a 300,000 RMB medical machine, a 30,000 RMB TV, and on a 30 RMB hair dryer. I suspect that this may be why Philips has such trouble translating its technological leadership into market leadership. Philips supplies critical technologies to numerous consumer electronics products, but Philips fails to lead in selling its own consumer products. It means something if I tell you I bought a new Nokia yesterday. What does it mean if I tell you I bought a new Philips yesterday or a new GE?

Not all technology companies suffer from this 'let's save money by putting the same brand name on all products' kind of thinking. Sony achieved fame with the Sony Walkman, and its computers are known as Vaio. Apple became famous with the Apple computer and then again with the Macintosh computer, and now once again with the iPod MP3 player.

But all too many companies do love themselves very much and they think their customers love them just as much. They don't know that nobody loves you like you do. So Haier becomes famous with refrigerators and air conditioners and other appliances and then they also want the customer to buy a Haier phone. Do I want to buy a phone from a refrigerator maker? I suspect that Haier has to give the customer a discount just for putting the Haier name on the phone rather than a made-up completely unknown new brand name like Kyoto or HiPhoneTec. Certainly it would be interesting to test whether this is true.

This tendency of technology companies to seek efficiency in branding actually has a long history of failure. Xerox entered the PC market and of course gave its PCs the powerful Xerox brand name. It's slogan for the computers was: "This Xerox can not make a copy". Consumers naturally decided that they didn't want to buy a Xerox that can not make a copy. A huge investment was wasted. Singer was the most famous sewing machine company in the world. They too wanted to enter the PC market. So they brought out the Singer PC. Say goodbye to more money. For some strange reason nobody wanted to buy a sewing machine company PC.

Hyundai also decided to enter the PC market. What did they call the computer? Of course they called it Hyundai. One more major investment failure. Samsung went the other direction. Samsung decided to enter the car business and, surprise, name the cars Samsung. Samsung paid Nissan alone 1 billion dollars to assist in the effort. Nissan must not have been too worried about the new competition. I haven't seen any Samsung cars for sale lately.

Most famous brands in the PC industry, or most any other new industry, are brands that did not exist before: Dell, Apple, Compaq, Acer, Lenovo. HP and IBM are of course two names that existed before, but they were both computer companies who went into the personal computer business. The fantasy that building a new business can be done more efficiently by building on the foundation of an old brand name from a different industry is just that: a fantasy.

People know this simple truth. You don't want medical advice from a famous singer, you don't want legal advice from a famous doctor, you don't want invstment advice from a famous soccer player, and you don't want to buy a car from a chip manufacturer, and you don't want to buy a pc from a sewing machine company.

It also becomes difficult to communicate to customers when companies have completely different products covered under a single name. Typically, in such situations, all product marketing initiatives need to be sent to a corporate marketing department for approval.

Look at a company like HP for example. I suspect the HP PC division likes to make advertisements that say something like "When you think HP Think PC ? When you think PC Think HP". But a corporate marketing department will immediately reject such a slogan, asking: "Are you forgetting HP makes printers too?" The HP printer division in turn probably likes to make advertisements that say something like: "Always remember HP! We are your printer company!" But a corporate marketing department will say: "Are you forgetting we make computers too?" As a result, companies in such situations find themselves wasting money on advertisements that say nothing at all and therefore are noticed by nobody.

The cost of the efficiency of using a single brand name for too many different products is very high. One brand name for too many products is like not having a brand name at all. The cost is an inability to communicate with customers. Economies of scale and scope are easy to see and much talked about. Diseconomies of scale and scope are very real too and they should receive more of our attention.